Re Patrick Major Lee
Read the full judgment text of HCB 3448/2008 on BabelCite. This HCB judgment was delivered on 26 August 2009.
1. Following the handing down of judgment in this matter on 29 July 2009, the Official Receiver wrote to the Court on 31 July 2009 to draw the Court’s attention to a factual inaccuracy in paragraphs 13 and 23 of the judgment. As the matter did not appear to be something which could suitably be dealt with by the issuance of a corrigendum, I indicated to the parties that I would deal with the matter by issuing a short further decision, a course to which neither party has objected.
Cited by 7 cases
|
HCB 3448/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO. 3448 OF 2008 ____________ Re: PATRICK MAJOR LEE, Debtor Ex Parte: ASIA TIME TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (in liquidation), Petitioner ____________ Before: Hon Barma J in Chambers Date of Submissions: 31 July 2009 Date of Decision: 26 August 2009 __________________ D E C I S I O N __________________ 1.Following the handing down of judgment in this matter on 29 July 2009, the Official Receiver wrote to the Court on 31 July 2009 to draw the Court’s attention to a factual inaccuracy in paragraphs 13 and 23 of the judgment. As the matter did not appear to be something which could suitably be dealt with by the issuance of a corrigendum, I indicated to the parties that I would deal with the matter by issuing a short further decision, a course to which neither party has objected. 2.The factual inaccuracy related to the residential address of the debtor in the annual return filed with the Companies Registry. In the judgment, it was stated that this was the same address as that of a property purchased by the debtor at Flat A, 16/F., the Colonnade, No. 152 Tai Hang Road, Hong Kong. In fact the address stated in the annual return as the debtor’s residential address was Flat B, also on the 16th floor of the same building. This property was owned by another director of Capital Investments (HK) Ltd, the company in respect of which the annual return was filed. 3.The fact that a residential address had been given for the debtor within the three years preceding the presentation of the petition was only raised towards the end of the hearing of the petition. It does not appear that the fact that this address related to Flat B, rather than Flat A, was adverted to at the time, or thereafter, until the Official Receiver drew it to the court’s attention. 4.However, the fact remains that the debtor did, on the evidence of the annual return, have a place of residence in Hong Kong, so as to engage the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to section 4(1)(c)(i) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance. This means that the points made in the last three sentence of paragraph 13 of the judgment are no longer valid, but, for the reason I have given, this does not affect was the outcome of the proceedings.
Mr Thomas Lee, instructed by Messrs Allens Arthur Robinson, for the Petitioner Debtor; Patrick Major Lee, absent Mr H Lo, for the Official Receiver |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCB 3448/2008